UNDERSTANDING THE PHYSICS OF TRIM

FORCE Technology, Denmark, nll@force.dk Nikolaj Lemb Larsen Claus Daniel Simonsen Christian Klimt Nielsen Christian Re Holm SUMMARY The physics behind changed propulsive power when trimming a vessel has been analysed in order to detect the origin of the changes. An example has been investigated for a large cargo vessel at partly loaded draught and reduced speed. For this draught, the propulsive power can be reduced by more than 10% with a forward trim seen relative to even keel. Approx 80% of the reduction is caused by changes in the residual resistance coefficient, i.e. changes in the flow around the bulbous bow. The remaining 20% is from improved propulsive efficiency at the trimmed condition. The performance has been investigated with model tests, RANS CFD and Potential theory CFD. Where the model tests were carried out as self-propulsion, the CFD was limited to calculation of the hull resistance in order to keep the calculation time at a reasonable level. Trim guidance with RANS CFD was found in line with the result from the model test. However, this was not the case for the potential theory CFD calculations. The potential theory CFD was found to under predict the change in performance when trimming. 1. INTRODUCTION There are many ways of optimising ship performance, but often the simplest changes offer the largest gains. An example of this is focusing on operating the ship at optimum trim in order to keep the fuel consumption at a minimum. At FORCE Technology (FT), trim tests have been performed for more than 50 vessels including tankers, container vessels, LNG carriers and Ro-Ro vessels with the majority being container vessels. Our testing shows possible fuel savings of up to 15% at specific conditions compared to even keel. In overall fleet operations, typical savings can be as high as 2 to 3%. FT has been working intensively with trim tests for the past 10 years. Focus has primarily been on the possible savings and utilizing the results for trim guidance. However, the physical effects that reduce the propulsive power have not been investigated thoroughly. The gain has been claimed to be a result of changed flow around the bulbous bow. This is correct, but changes in the propulsive coefficients could

also be a part of performance change. 2. OBJECTIVE The objective of the project has been to examine what causes the change in propulsive power when a vessel is trimmed. The possible explanations may relate to changes in the following parameters: Wetted surface area Water line length Form factor Residual resistance coefficient Thrust deduction Wake fraction Propeller efficiency Relative rotative efficiency Currently trim tests at FT are performed as self-propulsion model tests. However, if the main effects of trimming the vessel can be identified to mainly relate to the hull resistance, a possibility will be to conduct the model tests as resistance tests or alternatively as CFD calculations.

In order to gain insight into the topic, a series of resistance and self-propulsion tests with varying trim have been performed. The test series has been repeated using RANS CFD and potential theory CFD. By repeating the tests with CFD, we not only get important information on how well trim tests may be re-produced by CFD, but also the possibility of comparison of wake fraction and other flow patterns at the different trims. 3. DEFINITIONS Trim is defined as the difference between the draught at AP ( ) and the draught at FP ( ). This results in positive trim to the aft. Furthermore when a vessel is trimmed, the displacement and speed is kept constant, i.e. no extra ballast added and the vessel does not accelerate if the resistance is changed when trimmed. All trimmed conditions are seen relative to the even keel condition where percentages are listed or showed in figures. Savings are denoted with negative sign. 4. REFERENCE VESSEL The vessel chosen for this study is a large cargo vessel. The hull form represents most large car-carriers, container vessels, Ro-Ro vessels etc. with a pronounced bulbous bow, slender hull and a centre skeg with one propeller. The vessel was chosen due to its welldocumented resistance and self-propulsion performance by several model tests at FT. Earlier it has been tested in numerous combinations of draughts, speeds and trims. In this project, only one partly loaded draught and speeds corresponding to a Froude number of 0.128, 0.164 and 0.201 was tested. All speeds lower than the design speed at a Froude number of 0.228. Generally the largest savings are possible in conditions off the design condition (draught = (1)

and speed). Hence the partly loaded draught and low speeds. Ten different trims have been investigated ranging from -2.5m to 2.0m in steps of 0.5m. A standard FT trim analysis, based on model tests, gives the following trim guidance:
Propeller power deviation as function of trim, compared to even keel.
15 10 5

Power deviation (%)

Fn=0.128 Fn=0.164 Fn=0.201

20

-2.50

-2.00

-1.50

-1.00

-0.50

0 0.00 -5 -10 -15

Trim (m)
0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00

Figure 1: Propulsive power relative to even keel as function of trim.

It is seen that the propulsive power varies with both trim and speed. Figure 1 is applicable for trim guidance, and the variations are typical for a vessel of this type. However, it is not possible to detect the origin of the savings from the figure. 5. TRIMMING EFFECTS In general, the physical effects that reduce the propulsive power ( ) when a ship is trimmed can relate to the hull resistance ( ) or the total propulsive efficiency ( ) as shown in the formula below: = (2)

As defined in section 3, the speed ( ) is kept constant. From (2) it is obvious that the aim is to reduce the resistance and/or increase the efficiency in order to gain from trimming. In the following, the hull resistance and propulsive efficiency are investigated. The effects are treated individually although they might be connected. The findings are 2

based on model tests unless otherwise stated. An example is made with reference in the -2.0 m and 2.0m trimmed conditions seen relative to the even keel condition a Froude number of 0.128. These trims have been chosen due to the waterline variation around the bulbous bow.

5.1 Resistance The resistance is, according to ITTC standards, described by the following formula: = 2 (3)

Naturally the water density () is constant. Thus changes in vessel resistance will be a function of the wetted surface area () and/or the total resistance coefficient ( ), and either has to be reduced in order to gain form the trim. 5.1.1 Wetted surface area The wetted surface area is calculated for the vessel at rest, i.e. without dynamic sinkage. When the vessel is trimmed, the wetted surface area varies as shown below:
Wetted surface area (m2)
16250 16230

16210

16190

-2.5

-2

-1.5

-1

16170 -0.5 0

Trim (m)
0.5 1 1.5 2

Figure 2: Sketch of the vessel centreline and water level at the three conditions.

Figure 3: Wetted surface area as function of trim.

At forward trim (-2.0m) the bulbous bow is submerged, at even keel it is in the water level, and at aft trim it is above the water level. Changes in the stern region are modest the water line moves a bit up and down the stern. Within those trims, the change in propulsive power is:
Trim PD [%] -2.0m -11.3% 0.0m 0.0% 2.0m 20.7%

The variation in wetted surface area due to trim relates mainly to the large flat stern area for this vessel. For a tanker/bulk carrier, hull form variations in the wetted surface area will be even smaller.
Trim S [m2] S [%] PD S [%] -2.0m 16181.4 -0.3% -0.3% 0.0m 16223.6 0.0% 0.0% 2.0m 16241.3 0.1% 0.1%

Table 1: Change in propulsive power due to trim at Fn=0.128.

Table 2: Change in power due to wetted surface area at Fn=0.128.

The table represents the same values as plotted in Figure 1 for Fn=0.128.

Percentage-wise the wetted surface area varies little. The propulsive power varies the same due to linear proportionality. However, the effect on the total sawing due to trim is minimal. 3

5.1.2. Total resistance coefficient The total resistance coefficient can be described by the following formula: = + (1 + ) + (4)

Trim LWL [%] Re [-] CF [-] PD Lwl [%]

-2.0m 0.0m 2.0m -2.5% 0.0% 1.8% 1.91E+09 1.95E+09 2.00E+09 1.415E-03 1.412E-03 1.407E-03 0.2% 0.0% -0.3%

Again, for all values the aim is to reduce them in order to gain from the trim. The allowance coefficient ( ) is normally kept constant unless for vessels with large variation in the draught, e.g. a VLCC in loaded/unloaded condition. Change in the friction resistance coefficient ( ) is, according to the ITTC standards, related to the Reynolds number for the flow along the hull: = 0.075 (10 () 2)2 (5)

Table 3: Change in power due to water line length at Fn=0.128.

At -2.0 m trim, the water line length has decreased 2.5% compared to the even keel condition. However, since inverse proportionality is present, the result is an increase in the propulsive power of only 0.2%. The effect compared to the overall savings is minimal. The form factor (1 + ) is often kept constant at each draught in order to save time in the towing tank. Due to limited form factor data for the vessel in trimmed conditions, it is for now kept constant and set to 1.13 throughout this paper. The residual resistance coefficient ( ), also called the wave resistance coefficient, is often claimed to be the effect most affected by trim.
Residual resistance coefficient [-]
6.0E-04 5.0E-04 4.0E-04 3.0E-04 2.0E-04 1.0E-04 0.0E+00 -0.5 0

Where Re is the Reynolds number defined by: = (6)

The kinematic viscosity of sea water ( ) is constant for the same temperature. From (4) and (5) it can be derived that the frictional resistance coefficient is a function of the water line length ( ), and that they are inversely proportional.
Water line length in percentage of even keel value
2.0% 1.0% 0.0% -0.5 0 -1.0% -2.0% -3.0% -2.5

Trim (m)
0.5 1 1.5 2

-2

-1.5

-1

Figure 5: Residual resistance coefficient as a function of trim at Fn=0.128.

0.5 1 1.5 2

-2.5

-2

-1.5

-1

In the figure it is seen that residual resistance is more than five times larger at aft trim compared to forward trim.
Trim CR [-] CR [%] PD CR [%] -2.0m 6.80E-05 -70.9% -8.8% 0.0m 2.34E-04 0.0% 0.0% 2.0m 5.41E-04 131.7% 16.4%

Trim (m)

Figure 4: Water line length as a function of trim.

The large reduction in water line length from even keel to forward trim is when the bulbous bow submerges.

Table 4: Change in power due to residual resistance coefficient at Fn=0.128.

It can be concluded that the major part of the reduction in propulsive power is caused by changes in the residual resistance coefficient by comparing the savings in Table 4 with Table 1. Analysing the centrelines and water levels shown in Figure 2, it is easy to see that the changes relate to changed flow around the bulbous bow. For the -2.0m trim, the bulbous bow is slightly submerged and should be working properly. The opposite is the case for the 2.0m trim condition where the bulbous bow is above the water level and working more as an unconventional elongation of the water line. Summing up the contributions from the resistance parts to the savings in propulsive power gives the following result:
Trim PD S [%] PD Lwl [%] PD CR [%] PD RT [%] -2.0m -0.3% 0.2% -8.8% -8.9% 0.0m 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.0m 0.1% -0.3% 16.4% 16.2%

5.2.1 Hull efficiency The hull efficiency is a function of the thrust deduction () and the wake fraction ( ). 1 (8) = 1 From (8) it can be concluded that the thrust deduction should decrease and the wake fraction increase in order to gain from trimming. The thrust deduction is a function of the propeller thrust () and the hull resistance. (9) =

It has already been shown that the hull resistance changes when the vessel is trimmed. Naturally, the propeller thrust will change also as the speed is kept constant. However, the relation is not necessarily constant.
Thrust deduction
0.18 0.16 0.14 0.12 Fn=0.128 Fn=0.164 Fn=0.201

Table 5: Change in propulsive power due to hull resistance at Fn=0.128.

By comparison with Table 1, it can be concluded that changes in the hull resistance (caused by the residual resistance coefficient) results in the majority of the possible savings by trimming the vessel. The change from the hull resistance is 7882% of the total change. 5.2 Propulsion The propulsive efficiency is a product of the hull efficiency ( ), the propeller efficiency ( ) and the relative rotative efficiency ( ). None of the three contributions are necessarily constant when the vessel is trimmed. = (7)

Trim (m)
-2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5

0.1 0 0.5 1 1.5 2

Figure 6: Thrust deduction as function of trim.

The thrust deduction changes with both speed and trim. Most interesting is the peak for Fn=0.128 around -2.0m trim. This is when the propeller submergence decreases to a critical level. For the two higher speeds, the peak will come later due to increased dynamic sinkage and stern wave.
Trim t [-] t [%] PD t [%] -2.0m 0.166 14.9% 2.5% 0.0m 0.145 0.0% 0.0% 2.0m 0.147 1.7% 0.3%

Table 6: Change in power due to thrust deduction at Fn=0.128.

As seen in the table, the changes in thrust deduction result in significant changes in the propulsive power. However, due to (8), changes in the thrust deduction must be seen relative to changes in the wake. The wake fraction is a function of the vessel speed and the propeller inflow velocity ( ). = (10)

Open Water
1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
KT 10KQ o

Figure 8: Open water curve

As the vessel speed is kept constant, changes in the wake fraction can only relate to the propeller inflow velocity.
Wake fraction
0.22 Fn=0.128 Fn=0.164 0.2 Fn=0.201

The open water curve is plotted as a function of the advance ratio (). Where () is the propeller revolution and () is the propeller diameter. = (10)

0.18

Trim (m)
-2.5 -2 -1.5 -1

0.16 -0.5 0

0.5

1.5

It has already been concluded that the propeller inflow velocity was affected by the trim. The same for the resistance resulting in changed thrust and required revolutions since it is a fixed pitch propeller.
Trim J [-] 0 [-] 0 [-] PD 0 [%] -2.0m 0.751 0.638 -0.1% 0.1% 0.0m 0.752 0.639 0.0% 0.0% 2.0m 0.729 0.629 -1.5% 1.5%

Figure 7: Wake fraction as function of trim.

As for the thrust deduction, there is a peak around -2.0m trim. However, here it is present for all three speeds.
Trim w [-] w [%] PD w [%] -2.0m 0.209 15.5% -3.5% 0.0m 0.181 0.0% 0.0% 2.0m 0.17 -6.1% 1.3%

Table 8: Change in power due to propeller efficiency at Fn=0.128.

Table 7: Change in power due to wake fraction at Fn=0.128.

From Table 6 and Table 7, it is seen that for the forward trim the thrust deduction and wake effect balance each other, and the result is a gain of 1.0% in total. 5.2.2 Propeller efficiency The propeller efficiency can be identified in the open water curve. The curve is a nondimensionalised result of a propeller test in open water, i.e. not in the wake of a vessel.

Even minor changes in the advance ratio result in a changed propulsive power since the open water curve for the propeller efficiency is inclined for the actual advance ratio. 5.2.3 Relative rotative efficiency The relative rotative efficiency is defined as the ratio between the moment on the propeller in open water ( ) and moment behind the ship . = (11)

The moment measured on the ship/model differs from the moment in open water due to non-uniform flow and the level of turbulence.
Relative rotative efficiency
1.01 Fn=0.128 Fn=0.164 1.00 Fn=0.201

should give a result equal or close to the reference (Table 1):

Trim PD RT [%] PD T [%] PD [%] Ref [%] Diff [%] -2.0m -8.9% -2.7% -11.5% -11.3% -0.3% 0.0m 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.0m 16.2% 3.7% 19.9% 20.7% -0.7%

Table 11: Change in propulsive power due to trim at Fn=0.128.

0.99

Trim (m)
-2.5 -2 -1.5 -1

0.98 -0.5 0

0.5

1.5

Figure 9: Relative rotative efficiency as function of trim.

It is seen that the difference is less than 1% when compared to the reference. The difference originates in correlation between the different effects and is not included in this analysis. It is concluded that the residual resistance coefficient is the factor most affected by trim. However, the propulsion affects the results at a level detectable in model tests and should not be neglected. 6. ALTERNATIVE TRIM TEST The fact that most of the changed propulsive power originates in the residual resistance coefficient makes it interesting to make the tests, or alternatively CFD calculations, for the hull resistance alone. The computations are performed with the Reynolds Averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) solver Star-CCM+ from CD-adapco and the potential theory CFD code SHIPFLOW from FLOWTECH. The RANS CFD are calculated in model scale, same as the model tests, with 7,000,000 cells. The potential theory CFD is with 12,500 panels.

As for the thrust deduction and wake fraction, it is clearly visible when the propeller is affected by limited submergence due to forward trim.
Trim RR [-] RR [-] PD RR [%] -2.0m 1.005 1.7% -1.7% 0.0m 0.988 0.0% 0.0% 2.0m 0.982 -0.6% 0.6%

Table 9: Change in power due to relative rotative efficiency at Fn=0.128.

Also, the relative rotative efficiency results in a significant power saving. Summing up the contributions from the propulsive effects to the savings in propulsive power gives the following result:
Trim PD t [%] PD w [%] PD 0 [%] PD RR [%] PD T [%] -2.0m 2.5% -3.5% 0.1% -1.7% -2.7% 0.0m 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.0m 0.3% 1.3% 1.5% 0.6% 3.7%

Table 10: Change in power due to propulsive effects at Fn=0.128.

The change from the propulsive efficiency is 18-24% of the total change. Adding up the savings from changes in hull resistance and propulsive coefficients 7

Possible savings, Fn=0.128

20% RT, RANS CFD RT, Model test 15% RT, Potential theory CFD 10% PD, Model test 5%

resistance coefficient is the wave generation around the bulbous bow.

Trim (m)
0% -2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 -5% -10% -15% 0.5 1 1.5 2

Figure 10: Comparison of different trim guidance methods.

It is seen that there is good correlation between the performance change predicted by RANS CFD, resistance and selfpropulsion model test. As show in section 5, the propulsive coefficients give a distinct effect, hence the self-propulsion result deviates some. Potential theory CFD gives a trim guidance in line with the other, with the maximum forward trim as optimum. However, the savings are far more modest, and if e.g. the vessel is constrained to -1.0m trim, no gain at all is predicted. Potential theory CFD was not made for 1.5m and 2.0m due to convergence problems. However this may be expected with the highly deformed free surface in the bow region as indicated in Figure 12. In common for all the three curves, with origin in the hull resistance, is that they predict maximum forward trim as optimum, and if even more extreme forward trim was investigated, they might have that as optimum. This is not the case for selfpropulsion, since propeller coefficients change to the worse for trims more forward than -2.0m. Figure 11 and Figure 12 show the flow around the bulbous bow at -2.0m and 2.0m trim from both model tests and calculated with RANS CFD. It is easy to see the increased wave generation when trimming aft resulting in increased residual resistance coefficient. The flow around the stern is somewhat unchanged as also Figure 2 indicates. Hence it can be concluded that the major contribution to the changed residual

Figure 11: Bow wave at -2.0m trim and Fn=0.128. Model test and RANS CFD

Figure 12: Bow wave at 2.0m trim and Fn=0.128. Model test and RANS CFD

From the RANS CFD solution, it is possible to deduct the nominal wake fraction.
Wake fraction, Fn=0.128
0.300 0.260 0.220 0.180 0.140 RANS CFD Model tests

The calculation time for resistance RANS CFD is at an acceptable level even for the large number of speed-points needed in a trim test. In the present study potential theory CFD strongly under predicts the change in performance. The resistance varies too little when trimming the vessel and not at all for small forward trims. Therefore trim guidance based on potential theory CFD did not give practical applicable results in this case. 8. FUTURE ACTIVITIES Understanding the physics of trim is an ongoing project at FT. The findings presented in this paper are what have been investigated so far. In the spring 2012, the work will focus on: Better estimation of form factor with both model tests and various CFD calculations. Thrust deduction estimation with RANS CFD including a volume force as propulsion. The correlation between nominal and effective wake needs to be clarified in order to use the nominal wake for propulsion prediction. A trimmed ballast condition should be tested and calculated as we have often found surprising results for this with large trim to the aft resulting in better propulsive efficiency. 9. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This research is sponsored by The Danish Maritime Foundation through Danish Centre for Maritime Technology (DCMT). 10. CA CF CR CT D NOMENCLATURE Allowance coefficient [-] Frictional resistance coefficient [-] Residual resistance coefficient [-] Total resistance coefficient [-] Propeller diameter [m]

Trim (m)
-2.5 -2 -1.5 -1

0.100 -0.5 0

0.5

1.5

Figure 13: Wake fraction calculated with RANS CFD and from the model tests.

It is obvious that there is a significant difference between the two wake curves. The wake from the model tests is the effective wake, i.e. measured during a selfpropulsion test. The RANS CFD wake is the nominal wake, i.e. originates directly from the velocity of the water at the propeller plane without the propeller present. Because the propeller influences the boundary layer properties and possible separation effects, the nominal wake fraction will normally be larger than the effective wake fraction ref [4]. However, the slope of both curves is around the same apart from the peak at -2.0m trim at the effective/model test curve from the limitations in the propeller submergence as discussed earlier. 7. CONCLUDING REMARKS From the analysis of model tests, it has been concluded that the major effect resulting in changed propulsive power when a vessel is trimmed is the residual resistance coefficient acting on the hull resistance. However, the propulsive coefficients are at a level of approx 20% of the total savings and cannot be disregarded totally if accurate power at the specific condition is needed, e.g. for performance evaluation. If the result is to be used as trim guidance, only a rather good result can be reached with resistance RANS CFD calculations.

Fn g J n PD Qow Qship Re RT S t T TA TF Trim V VA w PD PD XX H RR T 0 (1+k) 11. [1]

Gravity acceleration [m/s2] Advance ratio [-] Propeller revolutions [RPS] Propulsive power [kW] Propeller torque in open water [Nm] Propeller torque [Nm] Reynolds number [-] Hull resistance [N] Wetted surface area [m2] Thrust deduction [-] Propeller thrust [N] Draught at AP [m] Draught at FP [m] Trim of vessel [m] Vessel speed [m/s] Propeller inflow velocity [m/s] Wake fraction [-] Overall change in propulsive power [%] Change due to XX-effect [%] Hull efficiency [-] Relative rotative efficiency [-] Propulsive efficiency [-] Propeller efficiency [-] kinematic viscosity of seawater [m2/s] Density of seawater [kg/m3] Form factor [-] REFERENCES Pedersen, Andersen and Aage, Grundlggende Skibsog Offshoreteknik, Technical University of Denmark, Spring 2008. Molland, Turnock, and Hudson, Ship Resistance and Propulsion, Cambridge, 2011. ITTC Recommended Procedures and Guidelines, Resistance Test 7.502-02-01, 2011.

Froude number =

[4]

ITTC Recommended procedures and Guidelines, Propulsion/Bollard Pull Test 7.5-02-03-01.1, 2011.

[2]

[3]

10